The Paris Paradox:

Sign the Agreement, Increase Emissions

Reject the Agreement, Reduce Emissions

China: Emissions Reduction Symbolism Over Substance

A little over a year ago, China was hailed as a country that was “stepping up” to combat climate change. After all, the country had agreed to sign on to the Paris climate accord and to emphasize renewables (wind and solar) in new power generation.

The commitment to the Paris climate accord was apparently more symbolic and rhetorical than substantive, however.

China’s fossil fuel-based energy production is currently (2018) increasing 3.5 times faster than its renewables (wind and solar) energy production as the country phases out renewable subsidies and returns to building more coal plants.

United States: Emissions Reduction Substance Over Symbolism

Citing the extraordinarily high costs (a price tag of $2.4 trillion per year according to the latest IPCC report) and an “unfair” burden to US taxpayers, the United States symbolically rejected the Paris climate accord in June, 2017.

And despite this rhetorical “backing away” from CO2 mitigation efforts, the U.S. continued to lead the world in CO2 emissions reductions during 2017.

Natural Gas Has Led The Way In U.S. Emissions Reductions

Why has the U.S. been so successful in reducing its emissions? Primarily because the country has continued replacing coal-fired power generation with much cleaner natural gas, which halves emissions relative to coal as it supplies readily-available and reliable energy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Natural gas cuts 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and 4 times more CO2 emissions than solar.

Due primarily to the CO2 mitigation afforded by transitioning to natural gas, the U.S. has already (2017) met its emissions targets.

“Before considering the future, it is worth examining just how far we’ve already come without any federal CO2 regulation (for existing power plants) in the U.S. Figure 1 illustrates historical CO2 emissions and natural gas prices from 2005 through 2017 (estimated). During that period, emissions have declined from nearly 2.7 billion tons to approximately 1.9 billion tons (∼30%), while revealing a strong link to natural gas prices. To be sure, while other factors (such as renewable energy incentives) also had an impact, the clearest means by which to reduce CO2 emissions has been to reduce the cost of generating electricity with less CO2-emitting fuels (i.e., substituting natural gas for coal).”

“So successful have market forces been under the existing regulatory framework to date that estimated 2017 CO2 emission levels are already at the CPP’s 2025 target (albeit without accounting for electricity demand growth between 2017 and 2025), well exceeding the AEO’s own Reference Case projections for 2025.” (Anderson et al., 2018)

U.S. Per Capita Emissions Continue Dropping Too

Though still high relative to most countries in the European Union, the United States’ per capita emissions have fallen rather precipitously this century. Again, this is mostly due to the aforementioned transition from coal to natural gas power generation.

The U.S. now (2016) ranks 16th in the world in CO2 emissions per capita (15.56 tons). This rate is well behind Canada (18.62), Luxembourg (17.61), and Australia (17.22) – other wealthy countries that have, unlike the U.S., signed on to the Paris agreement.

As of 2000, or before the large-scale transition to natural gas, U.S. per capita emissions stood at 20.60 tons, up slightly from the 1990 rate (19.59).

With the dip to 15.65 tons by 2016, the U.S.’s yearly per capita emissions have therefore declined by about 25% in just a decade and a half.

In contrast, China’s yearly per capita CO2 emissions output has risen from 1.97 tons in 1990 and 2.84 tons in 2000 to 7.45 tons per capita as of 2016. That’s an increase of 378% since 1990 for this developing country with nearly 1.5 billion people. At this rate, per capita emissions in China may exceed the U.S. rate within the next few decades.

China & U.S.: Contrasting CO2 Emission Mitigation Trajectories

Between China and the U.S., the country that is headed in the “right” direction – reducing CO2 emissions, closing coal plants, and purportedly mitigating climate change – is the one that has rejected the Paris climate accord and its commitments.

And the country that is veering off in the “wrong” direction – increasing its CO2 emissions and rapidly building more coal plants – is the one that agreed to sign on to the Paris climate accord and the concomitant emissions reduction commitments.

The U.S. – not China – is acting in a way that aligns with the spirit and the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

And yet because symbolism and rhetoric seem to be the primary focus as it relates to governmental CO2 mitigation policies, it’s China – not the U.S. – that is lauded for its “leadership”.

“China has become a global leader in policy and diplomacy on limiting the effects of climate change...” (New York Times. July, 2018)

Again, China is (easily) leading the world in overall CO2 emissions and in the construction of new coal plants. It’s also producing 3.5 times more electricity from fossil fuels than from wind and solar in its new power generation.

And yet China is astonishingly hailed as the “new low-carbon champion” for its “climate mitigation leadership” in a new paper published in the journal Nature.

“Since 2008, the Chinese government has switched to a proactive stance on climate governance and low-carbon development. Due to significant improvements in CO2 efficiency and a clear slow-down in the rise of its annual total CO2 emissions, China is increasingly perceived as a new low-carbon champion and appears to be in a position to take over global climate mitigation leadership.” (Engels, 2018)

China’s anointed position as a climate change mitigation leader and champion is baffling in its irony.

[Sorry, but you’re going to need to provide a more reliable source link than “blogs.edf.org”]

Well done, United States of America! But you are still a heavy weight per capita emitter… and I still don’t get how halfing the coal emissions by replacing them with natural gas emissions can ever get the US to zero emissions.

Again, China is (easily) leading the world in overall CO2 emissions and in the construction of new coal plants.

While it would be of course much better if China could stay at and eventually reduce their absolute carbon emissions, who are we to apply higher standard to them than ourselves (meaning western countries)?

And yep, they are the low-carbon technology leaders now. Partly because the US and Europe (Germany) let it happen. Solar panels come from China, batteries come from China and I assume they also install the most wind turbines on this planet now.

How is it possible that the irony of China’s anointed position as “climate change mitigation” leader and champion has continued to slip past so many?

There is no irony. The irony is with calling the US a CO2 emission reduction champion with their super high per capita emissions.

It was never claimed to be “all” natural gas. But even the climate activist blog CarbonBrief acknowledges that switching to natural gas from coal has been the primary reason why U.S. emissions were lower in 2017 than they were in 1985(!)

“Indeed, the climate group Carbon Brief reports that more natural gas use is the primary driver for declining CO2 emissions in the U.S. power sector. Gas has cut 50 percent more emissions since 2005 than wind and solar power combined.”

I still don’t get how halfing the coal emissions by replacing them with natural gas emissions can ever get the US to zero emissions.

Zero emissions isn’t even a realistic — much less possible — outcome.

While it would be of course much better if China could stay at and eventually reduce their absolute carbon emissions, who are we to apply higher standard to them than ourselves (meaning western countries)?

Who is saying there is a higher standard for China than, say, Canada? Do we say it’s OK that China builds coal plants, but not that Japan builds coal plants? And what is this about “applying a higher standard” when the ultimate goal is apparently to reduce global CO2 emissions? Aren’t we supposed to be all in this together? Is China doing its part by increasing their fossil fuel-based new power generation 3.5 times more than wind and solar?

And yep, they are the low-carbon technology leaders now.

So just by the act of manufacturing wind and solar equipment, they’ve become the leaders of low-carbon technology. Should other countries emulate them and increase their fossil fueled new power generation by 3.5 times more than wind and solar? How is that “low-carbon”?

The irony is with calling the US a CO2 emission reduction champion with their super high per capita emissions.

The U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country so far this century primarily by using a reliable, clean fossil fuel: gas. In contrast, the EU’s (and Canada’s and Australia’s) CO2 emissions continue to grow despite exponential growth in solar and wind infrastructure-building, carbon taxes, and heavy CO2-mitigation policies. There’s some irony there, alright.

But even the climate activist blog CarbonBrief acknowledges that switching to natural gas from coal has been the primary reason why U.S. emissions were lower in 2017 than they were in 1985(!)

Carbon Brief writes: “Coal-to-gas switching in the power sector is the largest driver, accounting for 33% of the emissions reduction in 2016.”

Zero emissions isn’t even a realistic — much less possible — outcome.

With replacing one fossil fuel by another fossil fuel … certainly impossible.

And what is this about “applying a higher standard” when the ultimate goal is apparently to reduce global CO2 emissions?

The “higher standard” is demanding from them that they curb their emissions at a far lower level (per capita) than we are at. If we can’t yet do it at that level why should we “demand” that another country should work harder than us? I mean it IS a global effort, but those who demand should also set the example (of how it ought to work). And that is certainly not by only switching from one fuel to another.

Is China doing its part by increasing their fossil fuel-based new power generation 3.5 times more than wind and solar?

Again, obviously wind and solar aren’t economical everywhere yet. Why do you “demand” that China should install less fossil fuel power generation when they still are so far lower in emissions per capita than the US? It would be great if they could install more wind and solar, but again … higher standards?! Why?

Should other countries emulate them and increase their fossil fueled new power generation by 3.5 times more than wind and solar? How is that “low-carbon”?

*sigh* should other countries emulate the US (or Canada) and increase their per capita emissions to their level?

The U.S. has reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country so far this century primarily by using a reliable, clean fossil fuel: gas.

No, not primarily! 33% of the reduction was achieved by switching to natural gas. Call me, when the US has achieved Europe level per capita emissions … is that even possible just by switching all coal power to natural gas power?

Germany is a funny example. Wind and solar ruining landscapes everywhere, yet a significant part of the autobahn infrastructure allows unlimited speeds. Full throttle driving by everything from Bugatti Veyrons to the local plumber’s Renault van does seem a bit counter productive. If the need for reducing emissions was so pressing I’m sure the “authorities” would quickly spoil the fun the there!

Since that’s the only way people like SebastianH can continue defending a developing country’s (China’s) fossil fuel infrastructure-building that is far out-pacing its renewables-building while simultaneously hammering the U.S. despite the latter’s emissions reductions and coal-plant shuttering.

If the U.S. reduces CO2 emissions by 40 tons but China increases its emissions by 120 tons, it doesn’t really matter in the long run that China hasn’t caught up with the U.S. yet on a per capita basis.

Why should it be about anything else? Bring down per capita emissions and you will bring down total emissions. Don’t force countries that aren’t yet at per capita levels of western countries to do more than those western countries to curb their total emissions. As Kenneth said, energy provides the means to lift folks out of poverty.

Germany is a funny example. Wind and solar ruining landscapes everywhere, yet a significant part of the autobahn infrastructure allows unlimited speeds

Yeah, we drive with our Bugattis at the limit all the time, that’s Germany. I don’t see wind and solar as ruining landscapes. Mining does, big power plants with large chimneys do and yes, the Autobahn does that too. BTW, if we could cover the same area that we currently covered with tarmac with solar panels, this would cover all electricity needs of Germany (if storage were available largescale).

Kenneth:

Since that’s the only way people like SebastianH can continue defending a developing country’s (China’s) fossil fuel infrastructure-building that is far out-pacing its renewables-building while simultaneously hammering the U.S. despite the latter’s emissions reductions and coal-plant shuttering.

I am neither defending China nor am I “hammering” the US. You act overly defensive on this topic, Kenneth … why? It’s good that the US reduces emissions, but they are still on a very very high level. Do you want the rest of us with half the emissions per capita really congratulate you for that effort?

We’ll see where China per capita emissions meat US emissions. Do you think that will be closer to current US levels or closer to current China levels?

Oh yes it is! Or rather divided by people. Why should a country with 3 to 4 times the citizens reduces its total emissions to the same amount as the US? I mean it would be nice, but especially the US is in no position to say that a 40 ton decrease doesn’t matter because China increased their emissions by 120 tons.

I’ve been arguing a per capita measurement from the start (assuming reductions are needed). Countries with growing populations, like US and Canada, simply cannot be expected to lump sum reduce emissions by XX% By 20XX. But this is what Kyoto type agreements call for.

I’ve been arguing a per capita measurement from the start (assuming reductions are needed). Countries with growing populations, like US and Canada, simply cannot be expected to lump sum reduce emissions by XX% By 20XX.

Exactly! Well they can, but you need to account for population growth.

Germany grew by a million migrants in the last years and they surely also use energy. Per capita is the only way to go to make it fair for every country.

[Sorry, but you’re going to need to provide a more reliable source link than “blogs.edf.org”]

Do I smell an ad hom? The image is from a paper:

Good, then. The reason why we need more than a source link to something other than a blog is because you have a tendency to cull your graphs from blogs like skepticalscience, which obviously doesn’t have a good reputation.

In looking at the paper itself, we find that wind and solar combined accounted for just 10.2% to 30.3% (0.42 of 4.1 terajoules in ’07 to 2.14 of 7.07 terajoules by 2013) of the renewables share used in the U.S. during that period. The rest – 70 to 90 percent – of the renewables share was biomass burning, which increases CO2 emissions and is therefore not contributing to CO2 mitigation, but causing a net increase.

And then the paper says this:

“By separately quantifying the impacts of renewables, nuclear energy, and natural gas, we find that changes in the composition of U.S. energy supply contributed 6.3% (SDA) to 7.5% [6.9%] of the total emissions reduction of 10% between 2007 and 2013, out of which natural gas contributed 2.5% to 3.6% [3.05%] and renewables 2.3% to 3.3% [2.8%] … compared with 0.6–1.5% [1.05%] for nuclear energy.”

So with 2.8% renewables (i.e., predominantly biomass burning that increases CO2 emissions) vs. 3.05% natural gas vs. 1.05% nuclear, natural gas is the most significant factor responsible for the decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions during 2007-2013, as 3.05% is greater than 2.8% (and 1.05%).

But if we were to break down the numbers from the paper even further to natural gas vs. wind and solar rather than natural gas vs. renewables that are mostly emissions-increasing biofuel, the natural gas contribution to the emissions reduction was far, far greater than the contribution from wind and solar combined during 2007-2013.

“Primarily”, “mostly” without even mentioning other contributors?

The other contributors (wind, solar, and nuclear) were mentioned, as shown here:

“‘… since 1950, natural gas and nuclear prevented 36 times more carbon emissions than wind, solar, and geothermal. Nuclear avoided the creation of 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide, natural gas 26 billion, and geothermal, wind, and solar just 1.5 billion.’ And according to the Brookings Institution, the best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions is through switching to natural gas-fired power plants. In fact, combined-cycle natural gas turbines cut 2.6 times more CO2 emissions than wind and four times more than solar.”

With replacing one fossil fuel by another fossil fuel … certainly impossible.

Europe’s growing obsession with burning biomass, which raises rather than lowers CO2 emissions, isn’t contributing to “zero emissions” either. The IPCC even says biofuels are the equivalent of fossil fuels when it comes to GHG emissions. So wind and solar – which have to rely on fossil fuels for backup and thus are sustained rather than replaced the more wind and solar infrastructure gets built – are the only means by which countries can reach “zero emissions”. And there is no way they will increase enough wind and solar to displace fossil fuel power generation. There’s not enough land on Earth to do so. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere (thankfully).

Moomaw, 2018http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief7.pdf“The European Union aims to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, but ignores the fact that burning wood from forests releases carbon dioxide. Instead, bioenergy emissions are officially counted as zero or carbon neutral. … The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarized the emissions of bioenergy use as follows: ‘The combustion of biomass generates gross GHG emissions roughly equivalent to the combustion of fossil fuels.’When wood is burned to produce electricity, it releases an estimated 80% more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal. This work by Dr. Sterman of MIT and his colleagues provides the first quantitative comparison of the total carbon emissions from forest bioenergy throughout the full carbon cycle, and compares them to coal, and renewables for a variety of bioenergy scenarios. … Burning wood to make electricity is also far more costly than deploying solar or wind technologies, and is only made economic by the European governments billions of dollars in annual subsidies. … A 2016 study found that 45% of EU renewable energy was from burning wood, and by 2020 the amount would equal the total EU harvest. According to an analysis of the new EU directive, conducted at Princeton University, “To supply even one third of the additional renewable energy likely required by 2030, Europe would need to burn an amount of wood greater than its total harvest today.”

The “higher standard” is demanding from them that they curb their emissions at a far lower level (per capita) than we are at.

Who’s doing the “demanding”? Certainly not me. I applaud China’s fossil fuel production and consumption, as it lifts 100s of millions out of poverty. But China already accounts for 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions and consumes over half of the world’s coal. They’re growing their fossil fuel infrastructure at 3.5 times the rate of renewables. The U.S. is shuttering coal plants and reducing CO2 emissions year after year. Which direction is the more laudable?

Why do you “demand” that China should install less fossil fuel power generation when they still are so far lower in emissions per capita than the US?

I’m demanding no such thing. I want China to keep building up their fossil fuel infrastructure faster than any other nation. But I find it ironic that so many people (like you?) think that China is a “leader” when it comes to CO2 mitigation.

*sigh* should other countries emulate the US (or Canada) and increase their per capita emissions to their level?

I wouldn’t mind if they did. Some 240 million people living in India still have no access to electricity. Why do you think *sighing* is helping you here?

If you say so it must be true … also we damn well know that 100% biomass can’t be the answer 😉

So wind and solar – which have to rely on fossil fuels for backup and thus are sustained rather than replaced the more wind and solar infrastructure gets built

We are just at the beginning. Battery shortterm storage and natural gas longterm storage is the answer. Solar and wind definetely replace the burning of fossil fuel.

And there is no way they will increase enough wind and solar to displace fossil fuel power generation. There’s not enough land on Earth to do so. Fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere (thankfully).

There is enough land. We don’t need to cover half the planet with solar panels or anything close to that. Also there is still nuclear and fusion which could augment solar and wind if economical versions of both come into existence in the future.

Who’s doing the “demanding”? Certainly not me. I applaud China’s fossil fuel production and consumption, as it lifts 100s of millions out of poverty.

In praising the US and blaming China you effectively demand that China should follow the US example. Only the US has far higher per capita emissions … that’s what I find strange in the way you portrait this.

And yes, availability of energy lifts people out of poverty. So why should China implement more renewables percentagewise than western countries if we don’t manage to do it large scale yet either?

Which direction is the more laudable?

The direction the US takes, but I seriously doubt that just switching all coal to natural gas would enable the US to come even close to European levels of per capita emissions. Or Chinese levels. We’ll see where China and the US emission levels meet each other 😉

But I find it ironic that so many people (like you?) think that China is a “leader” when it comes to CO2 mitigation.

Well, since you are fan of absolute numbers, they are in absolute numbers. They install most solar and probably also most wind turbines in the world. There you have it … leader! As the US is “leading in reduction” from a very high starting point.

Why do you think *sighing* is helping you here?

Because you try to make China the bad boy here while the US emits nearly double the amount of CO2 per person.

http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief8.pdf“At the point of combustion, biomass emits more carbon per unit of heat than most fossil fuels. Due to the inefficiencies of biomass energy, bioenergy power plants emit approximately 65 percent more CO2 per MWH than modern coal plants, and approximately 285 percent more than natural gas combined cycle plants.”

“Furthermore, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that combustion of biomass generates gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions roughly equivalent to the combustion of fossil fuels. In the case of forest timber turned into wood pellets for bioenergy use, the IPCC further indicates that the process produces higher CO2 emissions than fossil fuels for decades to centuries.”

Most significant or largest contributor is not the same as “pirmarily” and “mostly”, wouldn’t you agree?

Would you agree that wind and solar have played a very small role relative to natural gas since combined they only make up about 10-30% of the overall “renewables” contribution (and the “renewables” contribution is mostly biofuels that cause net increases in CO2 emissions)?

In praising the US and blaming China you effectively demand that China should follow the US example.

No, I don’t “effectively demand” any such thing. Please refrain from making up your own positions and disingenuously claiming I’m thinking what you concocted.

Kenneth, the first link is about liquid biofuels and not biomass burning in power plants.

The second link states “bioenergy power plants emit approximately 65 percent more CO2 per MWH than modern coal plants, and approximately 285 percent more than natural gas combined cycle plants”. Which might be true, but leaves out the part where the fuel gets regrown from the equation.

Last link is also about biofuels and not biomass burning for electricity generation. A large percentage of this kind of power generation is biogas btw …

Would you agree that wind and solar have played a very small role relative to natural gas since combined they only make up about 10-30% of the overall “renewables” contribution (and the “renewables” contribution is mostly biofuels that cause net increases in CO2 emissions)?

If you agree that those words aren’t the correct choice for something that only contributes a third to the emissions reduction. Yes, wind and solar contributed less than natural gas. I never said they are “primarily” or “mostly” responsible instead of the natural gas switch 😉

Can we agree on the US being unable to scold China for emission increases because they aren’t exactly the posterboy for emissions per capita? And yes, it would be fantastic if China could not further increase their absolute emissions and instead reduce them.

Yes, wind and solar contributed less [to the 21st century U.S. emissions reductions] than natural gas.

Far, far less. It’s not even close, actually: natural gas totally dominates when compared to wind and solar when it comes to recent emissions reductions. It’s only made to look close (like it did in this paper you referenced) when fudge factors are used, such as lumping the tiny contribution from wind and solar into the “renewables” category even though “renewables” is predominantly bioenergy (that even the IPCC acknowledges releases GHGs similarly to fossil fuels). Your claims that bioenergy does not increase CO2 emissions is theoretical. It’s not what’s actually happening in the real world. Bioenergy is effectively no different than fossil fuels; in fact, electricity generation from biofuels may be worse than coal. The EU’s replacement of coal with bioenergy (wood burning) is mostly symbolic. “Zero emissions” is not obtainable.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/pdf“[G]overnments around the world are promoting biomass to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The European Union declared biofuels to be carbon-neutral to help meet its goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020, triggering a surge in use of wood for heat and electricity (European Commission 2003, Leturcq 2014, Stupak et al 2007). … But do biofuels actually reduce GHG emissions?”

“[A]lthough wood has approximately the same carbon intensity as coal (0.027 vs. 0.025 tC GJ−1 of primary energy […]), combustion efficiency of wood and wood pellets is lower (Netherlands Enterprise Agency; IEA 2016). Estimates also suggest higher processing losses in the wood supply chain (Roder et al 2015). Consequently, wood-fired power plants generate more CO2 per kWh than coal. Burning wood instead of coal therefore creates a carbon debt—an immediate increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to fossil energy—that can be repaid over time only as—and if— NPP [net primary production] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.”

“Growth in wood supply causes steady growth in atmospheric CO2 because more CO2 is added to the atmosphere every year in initial carbon debt than is paid back by regrowth, worsening global warming and climate change. The qualitative result that growth in bioenergy raises atmospheric CO2 does not depend on the parameters: as long as bioenergy generates an initial carbon debt, increasing harvests mean more is ‘borrowed’ every year than is paid back. More precisely, atmospheric CO2 rises as long as NPP [net primary production] remains below the initial carbon debt incurred each year plus the fluxes of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere.”

“[P]rojected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP.”

“[C]ontrary to the policies of the EU and other nations, biomass used to displace fossil fuels injects CO2 into the atmosphere at the point of combustion and during harvest, processing and transport. Reductions in atmospheric CO2 come only later, and only if the harvested land is allowed to regrow.”

Note in the 2nd chart (blue horizontal bars) the USA is in the ‘reductions’ category along with Venezuela. In the former, wealth is being increased, in Venezuela wealth is being destroyed. For the USA, folks are committing illegal acts to get in, while in Venezuela citizens are committing illegal acts to get out.

Many things are going on in the USA other than the use of more gas and less coal.
Capitalism and competition (and regulation) have resulted in energy uses being more efficient. New houses, new autos, freezers, and hundreds of other things (millions of each type of item) allow a higher standard of living and more efficient use of energy.

In order to conduct a clear discussion about AGW or anthropogenic climate change it is necessary to distinguish 2 issues that are related but not identical.

1.Are we, as a global community, trying to reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted by human activities. If so then, judged by their recent records, we have to admonish China and praise USA.

2. Should we, however, be we more concerned with allowing equality between nations wrt emissions/capita. If so then we must permit China to continue emitting more CO2, if it feels that that is necessary and despite the global warming effects of such emissions, whilst at the same time urging USA to reduce drastically its dependence on fossil fuels.

Both arguments are respectable and relevant topics, but what one should not do, if one wants to be taken seriously, is to mix the 2 topics together, simply I suspect to satisfy an instinctive and personal desire to castigate USA even though it is doing more than other nations to reduce its carbon footprint.

Agreed Steve.
Despite that Why is the world not turning to thorium?
Very low radioactive waste
Zero CO2 emissions.(should placate the greenies – oops sorry they are unplacatable) and would take the heat (no pun intended) out of the debate.

Not agreeing with Steve for obvious reasons. Thorium reactors are fantasy tech as if now. If a economical demonstrator would exist, I am sure some kind of nuclear renaissance would happen. So far – like with fusion – we are a long way from having useable tech.

Oh and those not in your bubble who you seem to group together as “greenies” are not all against using nuclear reactors …

If co2 emissions were a problem that needed mitigating, I don’t see the per capita idea as very good. The world is something of a global community but not all people’s are engaged in the same activities. Some countries economies are industry based with necessarily higher emissions than an agricultural based economy. But the industry provides equipment for agriculture. So to have per capita limits is not recognizing and allowing for different contributions to humanity, is it?

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy